In this article, the impact of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on the sociology of science is evaluated. The main argument is that a questionable construction of Kuhn’s work heralded the constructivist revolution that ultimately contributed to the division between sociology of science and sociology of scientific knowledge. A reorientation of sociology of science that combines institutional and constructivist perspectives is advocated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agarwal, B. (1995). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119-158.
2.
Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Baber, Z. (1992). Sociology of scientific knowledge: Lost in the reflexive funhouse?Theory and Society, 21, 105-119.
4.
Baber, Z. (1994). Beyond hyper-constructivist fads and foibles. Critical Sociology, 20, 125-138.
5.
Baber, Z. (1996). The science of empire: Scientific knowledge, civilization and colonial rule in India. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
6.
Biehl, J. (1991). Rethinking eco-feminist politics. Boston: South End.
7.
Bloor, D. (1976/1991). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
8.
Chalmers, A. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
9.
Collins, H. M. (1983). An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. J. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed (pp. 85-113). London: Sage.
10.
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
11.
Collins, H. M. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Collins, H. M. (1995). Cooperation and the two cultures: Response to Labinger. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 306-309.
13.
Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. J. (1985). Frames of meaning: The social construction of extraordinary science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
14.
Cowan R. (1995). Women and science: Contested terrain. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 363-370.
15.
Cuomo, C. J. (1992). Unravelling the problems in ecofeminism. Environmental Ethics, 14(4), 351-363.
16.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: New Left Books.
18.
Feynman, R. (1955). Lecture at the Autumn Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.
19.
Fuchs, S. (1992). The professional quest for truth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Fuller, S. (1992). Being there with Thomas Kuhn: A parable for postmodern times. History and Theory, 31(3), 241-275.
21.
Gieryn, T. F. (1982). Relativist/constructivist programmes in the sociology of science: Redundance and retreat. Social Studies of Science, 12, 279-297.
22.
Gould, S. J. (1994, November 28). Curveball. The New Yorker, pp. 139-149.
23.
Hanson, N. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Haraway, D. (1996). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of the partial perspective. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science (pp. 249-263). New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
Harding, S. (1996). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is strong objectivity? In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science (pp. 235-248). New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
29.
Hessen, B. (1931). The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia. In N. I. Bukharin et al. (Eds.), Science at the crossroads. London: Frank Cass.
30.
Horgan, J. (1996). The end of science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31.
Jackson, C. (1993a). Women, nature or gender history—A critique of ecofeminist development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 20(3), 389-419.
32.
Jackson, C. (1993b). Environmentalisms and gender interests in the Third World. Development and Change, 24(4), 649-677.
33.
Jackson, C. (1993c). Doing what comes naturally: Women and environment in development. World Development, 12(12), 1947-1963.
34.
Kaiwar, V. (1994). Science, capitalism and Islam. Economic and Political Weekly, 29(9), 489-500.
35.
Kanigel, R. (1991). The man who knew infinity: A life of the genius Ramanujan. Toronto, Canada: Macmillan.
36.
Keller, E. F. (1996). Feminism and science. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science (pp. 28-40). New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Keller, E. F., & Longino, H. E. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism & science. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Kim, K.-M. (1992). The role of the natural world in the theory choice of scientists. Social Science Information, 31, 445-464.
39.
Kim, K.-M. (1994). Natural versus normative rationality: Reassessing the strong programme in the sociology of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 24, 391-403.
40.
Kleinman, D. L. (1995). Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
Knorr-Cetina, K., & Mulkay, M. J. (Eds.). (1983). Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.
42.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Black body radiation and the quantum discontinuity, 1894-1912. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
Kuhn, T. (1992). The problem with the historical philosophy of science. Rothschild Distinguished Lecture, Department of History of Science, Harvard University.
46.
Kumar, D. (1982). Racial discrimination and science in nineteenth century India. Indian Economic and Social History Review, 19, 63-82.
47.
Labinger, J. (1995). Science as culture: A view from the petri dish. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 285-305.
48.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Lewontin, R. (1995). Of genes and genitals. Transition, Issue 69, 178-193.
50.
Lloyd, E. (1996). Pre-theoretical assumptions in evolutionary explanations of female sexuality. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism & science (pp. 91-102). New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing accuracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
53.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1965). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
54.
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.
55.
Merton, R. (1938/1970). Science, technology and society in seventeenth-century England. New York: Harper & Row.
56.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
Mies, M. (1986). Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale. London: Zed.
58.
Mitter, S. (1994). What women demand of technology. New Left Review, 205, 100-110.
59.
Molyneux, M., & Steinberg, D. L. (1995). Mies and Shiva’s eco-feminism: A new testament?Feminist Review, 49, 86-107.
60.
Mukerji, C. (1989). A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
62.
Murphy, R. (1994a). The sociological construction of science without nature. Sociology, 28, 957-974.
63.
Murphy, R. (1994b). Rationality and nature. Boulder, CO: Westview.
64.
Musgrave, A. (1980). Kuhn’s second thoughts. In G. Gutting (Ed.), Paradigms and revolutions (pp. 39-53). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
65.
Nanda, M. (1991). Is modern science a Western, patriarchal myth? A critique of populist orthodoxy. South Asia Bulletin, 11, 110-116.
66.
Nanda, M. (1996). The science question in postcolonial feminism. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(16/17), 2-8.
67.
Pinch, T. (1995). In and out of the petri dish: Science and S&TS. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 334-337.
68.
Planck, M. (1932). Where is physics going?New York: Norton.
69.
Restivo, S. (1983). The myth of the Kuhnian revolution. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 293-305). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
70.
Restivo, S. (1988). Modern science as a social problem. Social Problems, 35, 206-226.
71.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72.
Rushton, J. P. (1995), Race, evolution and behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
73.
Scheffler, I. (1967). Science and subjectivity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
74.
Shapere, D. (1966). Meaning and scientific change. In Mind and cosmos. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science.
75.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
Shepherd, L. (1993). Lifting the veil: The feminine face of science. Boston: Shambhala.
77.
Shiva, V. (1987). The violence of reductionist science. Alternatives, 12(2), 243-261.
78.
Shiva, V. (1989). Staying alive: Women, ecology and development. London: Zed.
79.
Shiva, V., & Mies, M. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: Zed.
80.
Soble, A. (1995). In defence of Bacon. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 25(2), 192-215.
81.
Stabile, C. (1995). A garden enclosed is my little sister—ecofeminism and eco-valences. Cultural Studies, 8(1), 56-73.
82.
Winner, L. (1993). Social constructivism: Opening the black box and finding it empty. Science as Culture, 16, 427-452.
